Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Conyers v. Roddy, 17cv127-LAB (NLS). (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180919a52 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. 56] LARRY ALAN BURNS , District Judge . Plaintiff Dwayne Conyers filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on June 9, 2018. Dkt. 51. On July 20, 2018, the sole named defendant remaining in the litigation, Corporal Michael Roddy, filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process, claiming to have never been personally served with that (or any other) complaint. Dkt. 56. The U.S. Marshal's Service filed a completed Process Receipt and Ret
More

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

[Dkt. 56]

Plaintiff Dwayne Conyers filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on June 9, 2018. Dkt. 51. On July 20, 2018, the sole named defendant remaining in the litigation, Corporal Michael Roddy, filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process, claiming to have never been personally served with that (or any other) complaint. Dkt. 56.

The U.S. Marshal's Service filed a completed Process Receipt and Return on February 12, 2018, which indicates Corporal Roddy was served at Las Colinas Detention Facility on February 6, 2018. Dkt. 41. Corporal Roddy claims he was stationed at the Tri City Medical Center at the time of the supposed service. Dkt. 56-2. He has never been stationed at Las Colinas Detention Facility and, thus, could not have been served there. Id.

Whether Corporal Roddy was or wasn't served, given the Receipt and Return filed by the Marshal's Service, Plaintiff can be forgiven for believing service was effected. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff should be permitted time to properly serve the Defendant. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Given the apparent difficulty of serving Corporal Roddy, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer regarding whether Corporal Roddy's counsel is able and willing to accept service on his behalf. The parties should inform the Court of the outcome of that meet and confer by September 28, 2018. If defense counsel will not accept service on Defendant's behalf, the Court will instruct the Marshal's Service to attempt to serve Defendant again.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer